1160 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada , Local 162, AFL-
CIO-CLC (Tibbetts Mechanical Contractors, a
Division of Natkin & Company) and Daniel
O'Hearn and ' United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe-
fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local 166, AFL-CIO-CLC, Party in
Interest . Case 9=CB-6470-4
27 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 9 December 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision.
The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the Respondent filed' an answer-
ing brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, United As-
sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 162, AFL-CIO-CLC,
Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
David L. Ness, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gary A. Snyder, Esq., of Dayton, Ohio, for Local 162.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C.,LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried at Dayton, Ohio, on 15 September 1986.1
The charge was filed 16 April and the complaint was
issued 30 May.
On 12 and 14 February the Fort Wayne Local 166 re-
quested the Union (Local 162) to refer seven of its
Dayton Journeymen, five of whom the Union had named
on 20 January at Local 166's request. The Union referred
them under its established procedure of referring persons
requested by name for work outside its jurisdictional
area.
' All dates are in 1986 unless otherwise indicated
The primary issues are whether the Union, the Re-
spondent (a) "arbitrarily failed to follow its established
system for referrals" when it referred the requested jour-
neymen instead of seven -other members who were
higher on the out-of-work list, which is used for referrals
inside its jurisdictional area, and (b) unlawfully used the
word "member" instead of "person" in its hiring hall
rules, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
National Labor Relations- Act.
On the entire record, including my obervation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Union, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Tibbetts Mechanical Corporation, a Division of Natkin
& Company is an Indiana corporation that engages as a
mechanical contractor in the building and construction
industry at Anderson, Indiana, and annually performs
services valued over $50,000 outside the State. The
Union admits that Tibbetts is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
A. The Out-of-Town referrals
1. "Exclusive" hiring halls
The Union and Local 166 are stipulated to be "the sole
and exclusive source of referrals of employees . .. within
their respective geographical jurisdictions" (Tr. 7, par. 7(a)
of the complaint) (emphasis added).
The Union has a collective-bargaining, agreement with
the employer association -in the Dayton area (G.C. Exh.
2). Its hiring hall rules (G.C. Exh. 5) require it to follow
its out-of-work list when making referrals within that geo-
graphic area, with certain exceptions (recalls, supervisors,
and persons with special skills) (Tr. 15-16, 95, 122-123).
Local 166's referral procedure is set out in its working
agreement with the employer association in the Fort
Wayne area (G.C. Exh. 4, art. X). The agreement re-
quires (sec. 10.15) that all applicants be registered on
Local 166's out-of-work list. It further provides (sec.
10.16) that "If the registration list is exhausted" and if
Local 166 "is unable to refer" a sufficient number of ap-
plicants within 48 hours, "the Employer is free to secure
applicants without using the Referral Procedure." It does
not set out what obligation if any Local 166 has to fur-
nish workers-through the hiring hall or from other
sources-after its right-of-work list is exhausted. The
only applicable provisions are those (sec. 10.14) prohibit-
ing discriminatory referrals based on union membership,
race, etc. The agreement does not restrict Local 166's re-
ferring nonmembers, or members with or without travel
cards. It does not restrict Local 166's requesting persons
by name when seeking referrals from other locals, and
does not restrict the manner in which other locals select
283 NLRB No. 178
PLUMBERS LOCAL 162 (NATKIN & CO.)
persons to be referred , whether from an out-of-work list,
on the basis of financial hardship , or otherwise.
The National Construction Agreement (G.C. Exh. 3,
art. V, par. 25) contains a procedure for the International
to obtain additional journeymen from other locals:
In the event the local union is unable to supply
sufficient qualified and competent journeymen, the
Employer may request the United Association to
furnish such additional employees it requires and
the United Association agrees to notify its local
unions of the availability of work and request the
local unions to refer journeymen to the Employer.
The national agreement, to which both Local 166 and
Tibbetts are bound, therefore provides an alternative
procedure for supplying workmen-through the Interna-
tional and other locals-if Local 166 is unable to furnish
a sufficient number of journeymen.
Thus, the "exclusive" hiring halls are limited. The
Union's hiring hall rules require referrals from its out-of-
work list only for work inside its jurisdictional area.
Local 166 s referral procedure requires referrals from its
out-of-work list until the list is exhausted.
2. Procedure for out-of-town referrals
It is undisputed that when making "out-of-town" refer-
rals (for work outside its jurisdictional area ) to Local 166
and other locals, the Union has an established procedure
of referring journeymen requested by name, without
regard to their position on the Union 's out-of-work list
(Tr. 90-91, 95-96, 104-108, 116-117, 139). The only time
the Union follows the out-of-work list in making out-of-
town referrals is when another local requests it to supply
a number of persons without naming them (Tr. 95, 116,
139). l[ note that ` this exception does not exist at Local
776 in Lima, Ohio. Local 776 Business Manager Ronald
Bowen credibly testified (Tr. 105-106) that he never fol-
lows the out -of-work list when making referrals "out of
our jurisdiction." He refers persons who "inform me that
they would travel."
The Union 's policy is to permit its members to solicit
their own work in other jurisdictions. All the member
"has to do is pick up a travel card, and he can travel to
any of our local unions within the United States or
Canada , and secure employment on"his own" (Tr. 116,
121). (As found below, Local 166 did not require a travel
card.) The Union permits other locals to call its members
directly to perform out-of-town work (Tr. 93). If an un-
employed journeymen hears about available work in an-
other local's' jurisdiction, the Union calls the local and, if
requested, refers the journeyman for the available work,
without his being at the top of the out-of-work list (Tr.
92, 115). As Union Business Manager Enix testified, the
unemployment was high (Tr. 37) and "we check out
even rumors, to try to secure job opportunities for our
people" (Tr. 123). When Enix learns that out-of-town
work is available but he has no request for referrals, he
often tells unemployed journeymen that if they go there
and "happen to be" in the hiring hall when a call comes
in, the local "might put you to work" (Tr. 125).
1161
Registrants retain their position on the out-of-work list
when working out of town. As explained by Business
Manager Enix, "We do not remove them from the list"
because "they are still considered unemployed as far as
Local 162 is concerned. ... We try to work them
within our geographical jurisdiction" (Tr. 117-- 118). If a
registrant is working out of town, that information is
noted (with his temporary telephone number) beside his
name on the list , and "If I would get a call from a local
contractor , that man would be called to his home area to
work." If the individual refuses to return and wants to
stay on the out-of-town job, "he retains his place on top
of the list." (Tr. 32, G.C, Exh. 5, rule 1.)
3. Local 166's request for names
The Union was making continuing efforts to find em-
ployment in Local 166's area and in other jurisdictions
(Tr. 18,37). One of the Union's business representatives
telephoned and asked Local 166 Business Manager Wil-
liam Darnell twice about any available work , but Darnell
gave him negative responses (Tr. 139-140). On 20 Janu-
ary Business Manager Enix telephoned Darnell again.
This time Darnell stated that he may be able to help
some of Enix's unemployed members in "six weeks to
two months" (without stating where). He said that two
of Enix's members, Dean Brill and Howard Mercer, had
already been over there seeking employment and told
Enix to call back with five other names. (Tr. 19-20.)
As Business Manager Enix credibly testified, "I've
been in office 17 years, and I have never had a call like
this" before. Darnell was not asking for referrals, but
was asking for names of unemployed -members for possi-
ble work in 6 weeks to 2 months. "It kind of threw me
off base." He suspected that it was a ploy to get him off
the phone, or a brush-off, but he did not know. (Tr. 119-
120.) He obviously had no choice. He must submit the
names as Darnell requested or run the risk , during the
high unemployment, of losing the possible job opportuni-
ties.
Enix had made no preparations for such and unexpect-
ed call. He looked at the out-of-work list, but decided
that he could not follow it. In all probability "the top
names on that list would have been already working lo-
cally" by the time Local 166 needed the extra journey-
men. If Local 166 did call for them by name and they
were not available, the job opportunities could be lost
for the Union. (Tr. 23--24, 119.)
Enix recalled individuals who had contacted him per-
sonally, telling him "Jim , I'm in dire straits. I need to go
to work .... they needed to go to work someplace.
... one of the gentlemen on there, his wife had called
me. She said, 'My husband doesn't even know I'm call-
ing you.... Jim, we're losing our home, and they're
getting ready to take our car."' He selected five of them
and "sneaked in an additional one" from among those
who were low enough on the long out-of-work list that
they probably would not be working locally if ;Local 166
did call for men. He then called one of Darnell's agents
and gave him the six names, in addition to the names of
the two members whom Darnell had already chosen.
(Tr. 22, 24-25, 131.)
1162 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The February out-of-town referrals
The Local 166 jobs became available earlier than ex-
pected. After about 3 weeks, on 12 and 14 February,
Local 166 called the Union for the referral of the eight
journeymen to work in the Fort Wayne area (for an un-
disclosed employer). Local 166 requested them by name
and stated that travel cards, and referrals were not re-
quired and would not be accepted. Following the
Union's established procedure of referring persons re-
quested by name to work outside its jurisdiction, the
Union's business representatives routinely relayed the re-
quests to the eight individuals: Brill and Mercer (the two
chosen 20 January by Local 166) and David Drake,
Duane Greene, Donald Hines, Herbert Starry, Martin
Stieger, and John Weaver (the six suggested then by
Enix). All of, them except Drake reported to Local ' 166,
which referred them to Tibbetts Mechanical Contractors
on 17 February: Local 166 did not request anyone to re-
place Drake. (Tr. 120-121, 135-138, 141-144.)
Journeyman Daniel O'Hearn, the ' Charging Party,
spoke to Business Manager Enix on 17 February about
these referrals (that were properly noted on the out-of-
work list). O'Hearn asked how these people got request-
ed and Enix said he had previously given their names to
the business agent in Fort Wayne because (in O'Hearn's
words) "they was out of unemployment or was running
out of unemployment.... Mr. Enix told me that he was
just trying to be fair, and asked me how he could be fair
about it. And I asked him if he would get myself and my
brother, Michael O''Hearn, over there because we was
both out, of.work and needed a job at the time." (Tr. 35,
77, 80-82.) Enix credibly testified that he responded that
if O'Hearn and his brother "would happen to be in
[Local 166's] office, and they 'have a call for help they
might put you to work." (Tr. 125.)
I note that although O'Hearn and his brother were not
at the top of the out-of-work-list-the Union had earlier
referred O'Hearn to Local 776 in Lima, Ohio, when
Local 776 requested him by name. (Tr. 90, R. Exh. 4.)
His brother, Michael, had worked out of town in the
Lima area without, a referral from the Union when he
was`contracted directly by Local 776. (Tr. 93.) .
I also note that -although O'Hearn and the other six
members listed in the complaint were higher on the the
out-of-work 'list than those referred, Business Manager
Enix would not have given their names to Local 166 on
20 January. Local 166 had asked for only five names '(be-
sides Brill and Mercer). Two of those listed in the 'com-
plaint (John Skaggs and Willis Williamson) were then
working (Tr. 26, 130); two of them (Daniel Spicer and
Ted Woodburry) had been on sick leave (Tr. 26, 132, R.
Exh. 1);,and one (Kevin Shiveley) had advised Enix that
he wanted only in-town work. (Tr. 110.) (Shiveley credi-
bly testified (Tr.- 11l-112) that he would not have ac-
cepted a referral to Local -166 and that he 'had "no idea"
why his name was included in the list of persons dis-
criminated against .), The other two members listed in the
complaint (Warren Giles and O'Hearn) had been work-
ing out of town. (Tr. 87-88, 130.)
5. The General Counsel's contentions
The complaint alleges that in 'mid-February the Union
"arbitrarily failed to follow its established system for re-
ferrals" when, as requested by Local 166, it referred em-
ployees to work for Tibbetts within Local 166s jurisdic-
tion and failed to refer seven employees, violating Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). Thus the litigated issue is wheth-
er-the Union violated the Act in mid-February`by arbi-
trarily failing to follow "its established system -for refer-
rals" and failing to refer seven members 'who were
higher on the Union's out-of-work list than the seven
journeymen referred.
Recognizing this to be 'the issue, the General Counsel
contends in her brief that the Union "violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act in mid-February when it ar-
bitrarily failed to follow its established system for refer-
ral." She does not, however, dispute the fact that (a) the
Union had an established procedure of referring journey-
men requested by other locals by name, regardless of
their position on the out-of-town list and (b) in mid-Feb-
ruary (on 12 and 14 February) when Local -166 requested
the journeymen by name, the Union followed this estab-
lished procedure. She 'admits that the Union "honored
other locals' requests for specific individuals," and she
does not dispute that the Union acted in good faith.
In the absence of proof of the allegation that the
Union violated the Act in mid-February by not,follow-
ing "its established system for referrals," the General
Counsel relies on two principal theories -for contending
that the Union acted unlawfully., One is that the Union,
in effect, violated the Act on 20 January when Business
Manager Enix gave Local 166 the names of available un-
employed members. She contends (a) that Enix -deviated
from the out-of-work list in selecting referrals• for the
Tibbetts job, (b) that his method of 'selecting referrals
was' "haphazard," (c) that reliance on the financial plight
of members in making referrals is wholly subjective and
indicative of the unlawful operation of an exclusive
hiring hall system, and (d) that he lacked any justifiable
reason for deviating from the Union's referral procedure.
There were no referrals on 20 January and the complaint
does not allege any unlawful conduct in January.
The General Counsel's other theory is based on the
Board's agency rationale in Plumbers Local 513 (Master
Plumbers), 264 NLRB 415, 416-41,7 (1982). In that case
the Board found that the respondent local, when request-
ed by two other locals to refer unnamed applicants, was
acting as an agent of those locals under their hiring halls
when it failed to follow its "well-established procedure for
referrals." Here, in contrast, when the Union was asked
on 12 and 14 February to refer named employees, it fol-
lowed its established referral procedure.
In expounding this theory,,the General Counsel con-
tends that Business Manager Enix,;"referred members of
the Tibbetts job within Local 166's geographic jurisdic-
tion" (even though Enix was not aware of the identity of
the employer). Local 116 "had an exclusive hiring hall
arrangement with Tibbetts and "was contractually obli-
gated to furnish workers for Tibbetts from the hiring
hall" (by making referrals from the Local, 166 out-of-
work list). "When Enix inquired with Local 166 [on 20
PLUMBERS LOCAL 162 (NATKIN & CO.)
January about] the availability of jobs within its area,
Local 166 authorized Enix to secure the needed employ-
ees." (To the contrary, Enix was authorized merely to
suggest five of seven applicants that might be needed in
6 weeks to 2 months.)
The General Counsel theorizes that when the Union
made the referrals (on 12 and 14 February), "Enix was
authorized by Local 166 to fulfill its contractual obliga-
tion to furnish workers to Tibbetts from the [Local 166]
hiring hall," and therefore the Union was acting pursuant
to an exclusive hiring hall. I do not agree.
First, Enix was never authorized to furnish workers
for the Local 166 hiring hall . The Union's unemployed
members were registered on the Union's Dayton out-of-
work list, not on Local 166 's Fort Wayne out-of-work
list. There was no way the Union could refer its mem-
bers from the Local 166 hiring hall's out-of-work list.
Second, the Union was not acting pursuant to its own
exclusive hiring hall when it made- the 12 and 14 Febru-
ary referrals outside its jurisdictional area. As stipulated,
the Union was "the - sole and exclusive source of refer-
rals" within its geographic jurisdiction . As interpreted by
its executive board (Tr. 95), the hiring hall rules govern-
ing referrals from the Dayton out-of-work list cover only
the Dayton jurisdictional area. The Union was not obli-
gated to follow its-out-of-work list , when referring the re-
quested journeymen to, work outside its jurisdiction.
I therefore fmd, contrary to the General Counsel's ar-
gument, that the mid-February referrals were not made
pursuant to either Local 166' s exclusive hiring hall or the
Union 's exclusive hiring hall. They were made pursuant
to the Union's established procedure of referring jour-
neymen requested by other locals by name, for employ-
ment outside the geographic area.
6. The Union's contentions
The Union contends that it acted lawfully . It 'argues
that "there was no allegation or proof of breach of a
contractual obligation by officers" of the Union because
"the situs of work was outside the contractual jurisdic-
tion" of the Union.
The Union contends that when Business Manager Enix
placed a call to the Fort Wayne Local about 20 January
to see if any work was available, there was no request
for the Union to furnish manpower because of an' imme-
diate need . "There' was only a potential for work oppor-
tunities in the future with a request made to provide
names of those who might be unemployed at some
future, unspecified time." Enix "could not have been an
agent fulfilling Local 166 's contractual requirements"
when he supplied the names of unemployed persons "be-
cause in fact there were no employees required by Fort
Wayne." Enix could not follow the Union's out-df-work
list at that time because "had Enix named only those at
the top of the list" and "if they were workingwhen"
Local 166 called for them, "Local 162 would lose, out in
its attempt to get work for its personnel." '
Then when Local 166 did call (on 12 and 14 Febru-
ary) and asked 'for the individuals by name, the Union
"followed its established policy of filling the reqnest in
that manner." There was "no proof whatsoever of un-
1163
lawful motive ," and "No evidence was offered to show
hostility toward anyone."
The Union cites many reasons for distinguishing
Plumbers Local 513 , which it criticizes as the "'lone case"
extending liability to a local union as an agent.
To extend even further the liability of a local
union seeking to secure work for unemployed mem-
bers, beyond the once-believed limitations confined
to the local's own contractual hiring hall and
beyond the aberration created in Plumbers Local
513, would be a serious if not devastating blow to
those local unions seeking to attain full employment
in these difficult times faced by building trades
unions. To further shackle business managers who
in good faith make such efforts, would be intoler-
able. Such a quantum leap in the law of agency
would be unsupported and unjustified.
Although conceding that "there are obviously some
slight differences between this case" and Plumbers Local
513 (Tr. 101), the General Counsel argues in, her brief
that the Board's decision in Plumbers Local 513 is con-
trolling . I disagree and find that it is clearly distinguish-
able. I therefore do not rule on the Union's opposition to
extending that decision.
7. Concluding findings
On 20 January , when Business Manager Enix sought
information about available jobs ' in Local 166's' Fort
Wayne area, Local 166 Business Manager Darnell con-
fronted him with a unique situation . Contrary to the facts
in Plumbers Local 513, 264 NLRB at 416, Darnell did not
authorize Enix to act as an agent to secure emplyees.
Darnell merely stated that he may be able to help some
of Enix's unemployed ' members in 6 weeks to 2 months.
Darnell said that two of Enix 's Dayton members had al-
ready been there seeking employment and told Enix to
call back with five other names. Instead of being author-
ized to make referrals for employment, Enix was author-
ized only to suggest names of unemployed persons that
Darnell might or might not call for in the future, de-
pending on whether Darnell decided he needed them. As
found , Enix obviously had no choice but to suggest
names as Darnell requested . Otherwise he would run the
risk of losing the possible job opportunities.
Faced with such ' a request (the first time in his 17
years in office), Enix decided that he could not use the
Union's out-of-work list . Persons ' at the top of the list
would probably be working locally in 6 weeks to 2
months. If he gave Local, 166 their names and they were
not available for out-of-town work when (and if) Local
166 called, the job opportunities because of the high un-
employment could be lost to the Dayton local.
Not having anticipated the request for names of possi-
ble future employment , Enix had no list of unemployed
journeymen facing particularly great financial hardship.
He recalled some who had contacted him personally
about their dire financial straits and gave their names to
Local 166.
Contrary to the General Counsel's contentions, Local
166 did not on 20 January "authorize Enix to secure the
1164 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needed employees" and did not authorize him to furnish
workers from the Local 166 hiring hall. Enix was there-
fore not an agent of Local 166 when suggesting names
for- possible future employment.
There was also no violation of the Act on 12 and 14
February when the Union routinely followed its estab-
lished procedure and referred the journeymen whom
Local 166 requested by name. The Union made the refer-
rals in good faith. It had no motive to circumvent the
out-of-work list by suggesting five of the names over 3
weeks earlier for possible jobs in 6 weeks to 2 months, as
a way of protecting possible job opportunities. More-
over, the Union's hiring hall rules are limited to referrals
within its jurisdictional area. The Union had no obliga-
tion to follow its out-of-work list when referring the re-
quested journeymen outside its geographic area.
I therefore find that the Union did not in mid-Febru-
ary arbitrarily fail to follow its established system for re-
ferrals and did not unlawfully fail to refer seven employ-
ees as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, I find that
these 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) allegations must be dismissed.
B. Hiring Hall Rules
The complaint alleges that the Union adopted hiring
hall rules providing for the referral of only members to
position of employment. These rules (G.C. Exh. 5) do
use the word "member" throughout to refer to persons
signing the out-of-work list.
At the trial the Union took the position that the word
is of historical use 'and not a word of art. "We can and
will change that provision. . . . We think the word
`person' would be appropriate to insert in all those places
where the word `member' is now listed ." (Tr. 11-12.)
I find a technical 'violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) 'and
(2).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By using the word "member" in its hiring hall rules
to refer to persons signing , the out-of-work list, the
Union engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act..
2. The Union did not arbitrarily fail to follow its estab-
lished system for referrals or unlawfully fail to refer em-
ployees.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist and to take' certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and 'recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
ORDER
The Respondent, United Association of -Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus-
try of the United States and Canada, Local 162, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Using the word "member" in its hiring hall rules to
refer to persons signing the out-of-work list.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its office and hiring hall copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
9, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint is
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act 'not
specifically found.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
a] Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice. -
WE WILL NOT use the word "member" in our hiring
hall rules to refer to persons signing the out-of-work list.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
,by Section 7 of the Act.
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 162, AFL-
CIO-CLC
